If you live anywhere near Salisbury, you know by now that a majority of the city council wishes to end the 52 year old practice of reciting the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of each regular session. If you read last Sunday’s Baltimore Sun, you now know about it as well – even if you live across the Bay.
In addition to Salisbury, this practice is also performed by the Wicomico County Council, the county commissions / councils of the surrounding counties, and several municipal councils. While Salisbury is eliminating their traditional prayer, the Frederick County Commissioners have just announced that they will take up the practice of a public prayer prior to their meetings.
Short of being ordered by a court, should the city of Salisbury end the half-century old practice? No, it should. However, my reasons for wanting to keep the Lord’s Prayer in council meetings may surprise you.
As an evangelical Christian, I believe in a personal relationship with my Savior. Neither I, nor Christ’s church, needs the Salisbury City Council to validate my / our faith. From that point of view, I could honestly care less whether or not the Salisbury council stands up and recites the Lord’s Prayer. My opposition to this move comes from two other directions: a respect for tradition and the evermore predominant theory that religion should be divorced from the public square so that our fellow citizens will not be offended.
For over 52 years, the Salisbury City Council has begun each meeting with the Lord’s Prayer. Since that time, council members have participated regardless of whether they were Gentile or Jew. No one is suing the city. No one has publicly complained. Certainly no one has been harmed. Why, then, would we wish to change the practice?
Besides the attack on tradition, another aspect of this concerns me greatly. Should a public prayer be prohibited because someone might be offended or because government is separated from religion to the point of actually being anti-religion?
Councilwoman Laura Mitchell is quoted in the Sun, asserting:
"It doesn't belong in a governmental meeting," said Laura Mitchell, a Salisbury councilwoman who questioned the practice of reciting the Lord's Prayer before meetings. "Religion is a private matter. How someone prays, who they pray to, that's their private business."
Mrs. Mitchell, who believes that “it doesn’t belong in a governmental meeting”? Religion is a private matter, but only to the extent that our government must respect our right to worship as we please. However, that worship can be either individual or corporate, private or public.
While too many modern secularists believe that there is a “separation of church and state”, these same individuals ignore the very Judeo-Christian principles upon which this country was founded. Hindu’s, Sikhs, and even the guy who worships his cat should be allowed to worship as they see fit. That does not translate into abolishing religion from the public square.
Others argue that we should eliminate the practice because someone might be offended. Again, I don’t see anyone coming up to public comment and claiming that they are somehow harmed by this practice. There is no constitutional right to not be offended. If there were, a lot of people would be out of business. For that matter, I couldn’t even do what I do. Not all of my readers are fans.
The Salisbury council should re-examine the majority’s desire to end this practice. Tradition is not a bad thing; neither is opening a meeting with a prayer regularly said, publicly and privately, by the very people who founded this country.
G. A. Harrison is a frequent contributor to SbyNEWS. “Delmarva Dealings” appears each Wednesday and Sunday at Noon on SbyNEWS.
19600903
45 comments:
what this country is founded on in the 1700's and where we are today are two different things. I dont see the harm in prayer but it no longer belongs attached to goverment. that time has passed like it or not. we are a far more diverse country in 2011. The pledge should be read at every government meeting. In this day and age religion shouldnt be attached to goverment.There is no one right religion no matter what you believe. but we are one nation.
G.A.- I"m a regular reader who has greatly admired your writing for years- even though I'm a centrist. I never knew that you were an evangelical- never 'read between the lines' or read mention of it until now.
It's not about the fear of offending someone-not at all. It's about the assumption that a real or potential non-Christian council member should just 'go along to get along'. What kind of message does that send to the proverbial cat worshipper/ John Q. Public of another faith? It sends the message that the council, and thereby the city is Christian.
Well,it's not Christian. We are a community of many faiths,albiet predominately Christian.
So to hell with citizens of other faith? I sincerely doubt that you hold that view, but fear that your faith is skewing your objectivity.
Saudi Arabia's Basic Law of Government, article 9, says it's subjects will be brought up on the basis of the Islamic faith. Chritianity is not tolerated in the kingdom, with conversion to it punishable by death.
That law, while harsh, sernds a perfectly clear message to her subjects. The Lord's Prayer in a public meeting sends a similar but more subtle message to CITIZENS of the city.
G.A. , good for you , however , I do believe that the prayer should stay because I believe in God and
and one nation under God.
Another excellent post!
G.A.
You argued that removal of the prayer before council meetings is a precautionary measure "so that our fellow citizens will not be offended" and continue to criticize that view.
1. Separation of church and state does not exist to appease those who are easily offended. It exists to prevent any religious influence in the government. As long as there has been religion, there has been war because of it. I am a christian but I am perplexed as to how you consider it a fair act to recite a christian prayer and not another religion's ritual. I can only imagine the utter outrage that would besiege your body if Debbie Campbell instructed you to face Mecca and pray.
2. You are correct in stating that "There is no constitutional right to not be offended." What the constitution does state is that there will be separation of church and state for obvious reasons. Perhaps you should brush-up on your history and recall what happened during the Spanish Inquisition. I don't believe that history supports the intertwining of religion and government thus they should be kept separate.
Well if you can't say the Lord's Prayer you also can't say the pledge. "One Nation Under God". I agree with the contributor whole heartedly. Our founding fathers built the country on Christian principles. Yes, we have gotten away from them these days - ever wonder why our country is so immoral? There's your answer. Everyone is too worried about their rights to realize how ridiculous they sound trying to ensure no one is offended.
If you beleive we are one nation, you've been in a coma for the last 40 years. We are a crumbling nation being torn apart by diverse groups looking to take the power away from the America I was born in and love so dearly.
God is alive and don't think for a minute he's pleased with where we are going. He is a God that wants to be worshiped everywhere, not just privately and individualy. Jesus was sent to teach us how to live and we are a far cry from his loving instruction. Although some doubt if he was the son of God, none doubt his existance and the good news he preached.
Satan is also alive and wants you to spend eternity with him. Turn your back on God and when judgement comes you will know what the truth is.
I'm calling all people who believe to stand up and contact your city council. Demand they return to the Lord's Prayer and demand they listen to the almighty who created us.
Or sit back and watch Him go away like the blowing wind and then tell me how grand life will be, or the eternal life that follows.
don't worry in 50 years when the muslims run this country and city and they hold their call to prayers your grandchildren will show up if they know whats good for them!
AMEN, G.A. re: tradition.
I wish Mrs. Mitchell had been more forthcoming about her agenda calendar and priorities prior to the election. I don't think we'd be involved with this at all now.
12:18, you are correct! I have written on numerous occasions when this topic has been on Joe's blog that a government meeting is no place to have a RECITED prayer. The Lord's Prayer is a Christian prayer, but many of the people who attend Council meetings, as well as at least one Counci member, are not Christian. The argument that we would be upsetting tradition is not a very cogent reason. Sometimes tradition(this one since 1952) needs to make way for the 2011 world; one can't hold on to tradition forever, especialy if that tradition offends. A moment of silent prayer is a good solution; each person can pray--or not pray--as he sees fit--a devout Christian.
ANON 1:29 I agree wholeheartedly!
My wife talked me in to voting for Mrs. Mitchell. She will not get my vote next election and most certainly won't get my wife's vote.
first of could we all stay on point here. i know its hard for most of you.Mardela,leave your god and satan ramblings for church. first of all we are not an imoral country,stop paying soo much attention to the media and look around you. we are still one nation under god just many of us now have different faiths. could salisbury afford a lawsuit if someone decided to go there i really think not. salisbury and all of delmarva have much bigger issues than a prayer before a meeting. stop jumping over the big issues to address the small ones.
It really makes me wonder , some of these women !! I don't know why we even let them vote years ago. Look at Pelosi , shanie , mitchell
and others who have this country screwed-up. My boss used to say ," if it weren't for the sex , it would be a bounty on them".
i find it ironic that people get offended by someone saying a prayer so they can say theirs. tolerance used to be a two-way street
For ALL of you who stated and believe the term "seperation of church and state" is in the constitution; PROVE IT!!!!! I want to see YOUR proof.
This term IS in the Soviet constitution.
2:52, get ready for an onslaught of comments!
3:25,
Show me in the Constitution where it says we are a Christian nation, or where Jesus or the Lord's Prayer is mentioned.
I would LOVE to see your proof.
While the majority of Americans happen to be Christian, there is great disagreement among Christians. One thing is clear, though: we are NOT a theocracy, and having public officials lead a prayer belonging to a specific religion is ridiculous, particularly when the council president is definitely not a Christian.
I think where the confusion lies here is in the term/concept of Christian Privilege. If you are unfamiliar with this concept I recommend checking it out. When people argue that prayer/religion should not be in government/schools/etc it is not an attack/persecution of Christianity. It is simply removing the Privilege Christians have enjoyed because they were the majority and no one questioned it, making them equal with all other faith/non-faith systems/perspective. Wanna have a prayer before a government meeting... no problem... but when it is on the government's time, "our time... all of us... all American's.. of all faith systems", no faith system gets to have the "privilege".
1:41 You think you are devout? You should be telling others about the Good News not hiding it so that others won't be offended.
@1:11 Yes I agree we should not say "under God" in the pledge. That phrase was added in 1954.. and has been argued that it was added as part of the red scare. Same thing with our money... it used to say "mind your business" on it... "in god we trust" didn't show up until 1864... personally, I liked the original inscription better... We are Americans. Americans are all races, religions, creeds... etc, etc... the REASON people came to this country was to get away from religious ideas being imposed on them by their government.
Thank you, Laura Mitchell. I KNOW the voters in your ward are supremely proud of you and your efforts. I KNOW that when they voted for you, they just KNEW you had many issues and problems the city and county needed to solve and you were anxious to address them. A MAGNIFICENT effort, extremely important, and you certainly showed everyone that you had your priorities in the correct order and knew exactly where to place the most effort. This endeavor solved a lot of problems we have here in one fell swoop. I, for one, never realized just how badly the Lord's prayer was holding us back, contributing to city blight, crime, and corruption. You are to be commended on your insightful attention and dedication to making the city a better place....I suggest we disband the City Council now that you have solved our most pressing issue. Their presence is no longer required, as far as I can tell.
Most of our founding fathers were religious and believed in the moral standard that came from following God's rules and laws.
Tolerance is letting people worship who they want, but it is not changing your rules and laws to suit them. We are confusing this issue. We are letting the few dictate what the many want. When will it end?
Our military is now letting homosexuals run wild in the ranks. They are changing the morale and accepting the sexual deviant lifestyle and making those who oppose it accept it. Where does it end? Do we let child predators in next? They are "born" with their problem. Why don't we coddle them too and accept them for who they are. Do you see how ridiculus this is?
We were founded on Judeo-Christian values and we should stay that way. If you don't like those beliefs and ideals, move to a country or state where they believe like you. We shouldn't have to change and accept the "new" times but instead be bound to the laws and principles we were founded on.
I served proudly in our military and would still be there if I could. I served to defend those values and will fight for the America that we were. Take the blinders and look around. There are many nations tryig to take us down and they are using our own laws and rules to do it. They know that the only way to beat us is to erode the moral compass and divide us into civil strife.
@6:05 "Mardela" I understand your frustration. Thank you for your service to our country, service to defend America, and the ideas it was founded on. What concerns me is your assertion of foundation on Judeo-Christian values and that we should "stay that way". That is unclear to me and it sounds like you are arguing for some sort of theocratic law/rule.... which is diametrically opposed to "American" ideal that you served for. I guess...I wish you were more specific as to what you mean.. what would that mean?
5:32, yes I consider myself devout (1:41). I do spread the "Good News" wherever appropriate, but a government meeting is not such a venue. I am mindful of the fact that our new Council president is Jewish; she should not have to lead the Council and audience in the Lord's Prayer. It is arrogant to try to force my Christianity on others, especially in a secular environment. For the umpteenth time, I'll write it again: A silent prayer is the way to go. Anyone who wishes to pray before the meeting may do so, and those who do not will be tolerant of the rights of those who do.
Anonymous 5:33,
while "In God We Trust" appeared on coins in 1864, it didn't appear on paper currency until 1956.
That being said, I completely agree with and support your argument. :)
6:43 I am glad Jesus didn't wait until it was "appropriate" to spread the Good News. You are working against Christ's message.
Remeber it is freedom of religion. Let the Jews say their prayers too. If you don't want to pray at that time, then read a book, text or talk on the phone. I can't believe people are offended by something that is good! Twisted!
Vote Republican!!
4:37 don't change the topic just prove what i asked for. again; where does the term "seperation of church and state" appear in the constitution?
1:11 the reason people came here was for the freedom to worship God in Spirit and in Truth.
the practice of opening meetings with prayer; thanking God for the blessings (food,clothing, shelter and life itself)even through many hardships, etc. were heartfelt because they had grateful hearts. they called upon God because they knew they needed His wisdom and depended on Him for their very sustanance.
we; as a nation have decided we no longer need God and His wisdom, so we continue to let Him know this in so many ways. we have become high minded and arrogant depending on fallen man to have all the answers. well, well, well, aren't we smart..... look at us now. we are so very brilliant. NOT
9:07,you just don't get it. I'm not "working against Christ's message." A government meeting is to discuss secular business, not to preach Christ's message. I can guarantee you that I am very devout, very devoted to my church, and I do spread the message of the gospel WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE. Amen!
9:49 i didn't realize that opening a meeting with the "Lord's Prayer" was preaching Christ's message. this is an odd statement to make. it just doesn't compute......
Anon 1257 -
I'm not letting my faith skew may views on this at all. As I stated, I don't need the city of Salisbury (or any other government body) to validate my faith. I just don't think that this is a bad tradition. I also am sick and tired of the secular left arguing for anti-religious policies in the name of "separation of church and state" (a notion that is not in our Constitution but thought up by a judge). My argument is strictly a traditionalist one, not one based on faith.
I am curious, why are you shocked that I am an evangelical Christian? Granted, I don't wear my faith on my sleeve. That's because it doesn't suit who I am. I don't use this forum to evangelize because I don't think that it's an appropriate forum.
To be honest, the only reason I even mentioned it here was because I wanted to disclose it.
****************
Anon 1300 -
First of all, the Constitution does not call for a separation of church and state. Second, if my friend Debbie instructed me to face east and bow towards Mecca I would simply refuse. Third, there is no possible comparison between this and the Spanish Inquistion. No one is arguing that the city council has a right to dictate how you worship or whether you worship. I am one of those "strange" people who refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance for reasons of faith. I don't argue that the city council shouldn't say it. I simply stand respectfully while everyone else is saying it. Curiously, I'm not harmed by the experience.
***************
Anon 1325 -
I hope you are wrong. However, if you are correct I pray that my grandchildren will have the guts to stand up and face prison rather than abandon Christ. However, I don't think that this is really relevant to whether or not the Salisbury council abandons the Lord's Prayer.
****************
Anon 1341 -
Again, there is not right not to be offended. If there was, the porn industry would be out of business along with a few others.
********************
Anon 1430 -
IF the city of Salisbury was sued then I think the issue should be revisited. However, they are not being sued. No one has stood up at public comment and claimed to have been harmed. To the best of my knowledge, no one has even stood up and claimed to be offended other than Mrs. Mitchell.
*********************
Anon 1637 -
I'm not aware of anyone who has argued that the Constitution says that we are a Christian nation. What has been argued is that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Basic high school history affirms that.
I'm not aware of anyone (in this discussion) who has argued for a theocracy. I would agree that having Ms. Cohen lead a prayer against her will is ridiculous. If she doesn't wish to, she could punt to another member of council or even a member of the audience.
*******************
Anon 1712 -
With all due respect that was one of the prettiest, yet most foolish arguments I have come across.
Since I am a conservative (and there are many like me), and I generally am offended by tax increases, by your argument they shouldn't be discussed because many of us would be offended. Sorry, that's what elections are for.
*****************
Anon 1758 -
I wouldn't go quite that far, but pretty funny.
********************
Anon 1843 -
You are correct that a council meeting is not the appropriate setting for spreading the Gospel. That is not what I argued (I realize that you were not responding to me).
I am not arguing that we should force anything on anyone. No one is forced to pray. No one is forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ironically, if the city were ever sued over the Lord's Prayer, the would also lose over a moment of silence. During a work session I attended, Terry was quite specific that such a "moment of silence" would be for prayer or meditation.
The Lord's Prayer is the prayer Jesus preached to teach people how to pray. Where do you think it's name comes from?
I never could stand the hypocrites who said that prayer and always admired Mrs. Cohen's respectful way of dealing with being the odd woman out.
Glad you posted the link to the Sun. Shows Laura Mitchell as pretty pushy about it, especially that last line. Shanie Shields is rude for not showing up just because she didn't get her way.
Mrs. Cohen's comments were nice. I wish her a lot of luck because it sure looks like she's got a couple of troublemakers on her hands.
The city council and the board of ed. I don't know which one is worse.
G.A., do you use military time just to be different?
No. I also never had the honor of serving. It is just easier for me to use 24 hour (or military) time because so many of the comments are Anon and because they come in over much of the day. In this case, they are even coming in on the day after the post.
Thanks for asking.
ok, thanks for answering.
@G.A. Harrison RE:1712
I am flattered that you find my prose to be pretty. You did not address, though, any of my point.. yet you called it foolish.
I am also a Conservative... and hate higher taxes. This is something that affects all Americans and should be part of a Governmental proceeding. Religious promotion or proselytizing in a government forum is not taxes. We can have a discussion elsewhere about taxes... this discussion is about prayer, so I would be happy to see a reply to my message that is relevant to it's content.
Anon 1712 -
I am sorry, but I did address your argument (at least part of it). I didn't address the "Christian Privilege" part because, frankly, it was not worth refuting. However, we will hit both now.
Let's go to your last comment:
"I am also a Conservative... and hate higher taxes. This is something that affects all Americans and should be part of a Governmental proceeding. Religious promotion or proselytizing in a government forum is not taxes. We can have a discussion elsewhere about taxes... this discussion is about prayer, so I would be happy to see a reply to my message that is relevant"
Taxes affect all Americans? Not really. At the federal level we are approaching the point where a majority of Americans will not pay the federal income tax. Many Americans don't pay property taxes (although you could argue that they do indirectly, which could also be said of some other taxes). I am not arguing that taxes shouldn't be discussed. You are arguing that since a minority doesn't subscribe to (your words) a particular "faith system" that the Prayer should be out of bounds. Since a portion of Americans don't pay a particular tax, by your logic that should out of bounds as well.
As to "Christian Privilege", you don't appear to be living in the same world that I do. Christians are harassed every day because of their faith. People have been dismissed from their jobs for keeping a Bible on their desks. Many of my brethern are labeled bigots and homophobes because of their beliefs. Where is the "privilege" in that? Granted, things are far worse elsewhere in the world, but that doesn't make it right here.
Again, I go back to two things:
No one has a Constitutional right "not to be offended".
Rationalism has never been a successful means of governance (from the French Revolution through the current nanny state). Yet, we are abandoning a 52+ year tradition because someone MIGHT be offended. The secularism that you appear to embrace is, in reality, anti-Christian rather than neutral.
It is simple. If you are offended by prayer then don't say it. Do something else while the prayer is being said. The people who want prayer taken away are offended by lots of other things too. You will never pacify them. They will just eat away at our culture and our rights.
@G.A.
Proposals in changes in legislation regarding taxes affect everyone. Whether the law is set up so that people pay differently/or don't pay at all, changes to these laws do indeed include everyone.
The issue of prayer is not a minority vs majority issue per-se. It is an issue of promotion of religious views in the "public" (meaning government) arena. We have the freedom of religion in this country, and I think that it should be defended. The reason a secular government is needed is so that it can protect the rights of all Americans to have that freedom. In this, the government WOULD be protecting a minority form the majority by default, because it is required to defend that freedom for all Americans. (much like the Civil Rights movement.. protecting a minority rights from being infringed on by the majority)
You are correct about "being offended"... sometimes with the freedoms we have some people will be offended.
I find it horrid that someone would loose their job for having a "holy book" on their desk. That does not seem like grounds for termination... If they were proscelytizing on work time, then yes, the employer has the right to terminate them.
Last time I checked, this was an overwhelmingly self identifying Christian society. Pick up a phone book and look under "churches" in your area. How is it that Christians are being harassed, or persecuted... specifically, when they are the overwhelming majority... and before you answer, reflect on if it applies to other faith systems as well.
You see... I don't believe you are arguing for "religious freedom". I think you are arguing to have the promotion of YOUR religion/faith in Government... and no one elses. Would you support a Muslim call to prayer as an opening in a government meeting?
And finally, some confusion on your last point... you are asserting that if there is not a prayer as has been done for 52+ years, specifically a christian prayer, spoken at meetings of government.... held by a majority of members that are self identified Christians, whose duty is to protect the Constitutional right of freedom of religion for ALL Americans..... that we crumble into a failed secular society?
Anon 1218 -
Lot of good points. Then you have to hang it all on "freedom of religion for ALL Americans" to tie it together. That's where it all crumbles.
NO ONE's freedoms are being violated here. NO ONE is being forced to participate. NO right is being violated, unless you believe that there is a right of being shielded from religion.
As I noted in the post, I don't care that much about the "moment of silence". I'm just sick and tired of people being allowed to throw away traditions because someone might be offended. I'm also tired of people arguing that freedom OF religion is the same thing as freedom FROM religion.
if i was living in a muslim country i would expect to follow their culture. there are christians that live in these countries and unfortunately they are constantly persecuted. many are killed and churches burned. this again is their culture.
America has their own unique culture that is being eroded everyday because we allow it. our founding fathers (foundation) did not intend for this to happen. we are a judeo/christian nation. our laws are based on the 10 commandments (then english law); not sharia law. get it?
Mr. Harrison, i have made many comments on your post and will continue to comment on this topic until i can no longer. thank you for your original post.....
people can be sincere in their beliefs but they can be sincerely wrong as some on this topic.
@G.A.
I too, don't care for the moment of silence.
I do not think the prayer issue is one of someone being "offended".... it is a question of the intent and purpose of the prayer. What purpose does it serve, why is it done? Tradition certainly, but why was the tradition started? Will you answer to me what is the intent and purpose of the prayer, and why was the tradition started?
@8:35 pm
10 commandments are what our laws are based on? Lets look at that. The first 4 commandments... nothing in our laws. 5th commandment... good idea, but no law saying to honor father/mother. 6th.. yes, murder in our laws. 7th.. no, distasteful but not illegal. 8 & 9 yes, theft and perjury in our laws. 10... no.
So that's 5 that have nothing to do with our laws or legal system, 3 that do, and two that while distasteful or not illegal. Also, these constructs that do apply to our culture, and the 3 that do apply to our laws can be found in almost every society and legal system today.
So my verdict after looking at the facts.. no, our laws are not based on the 10 commandments.
@G.A. re:8:15 am
Wow... you have gone suspiciously quiet at my questions... I wonder if that is by by design... or if it is because if you did answer my questions it would expose the fact that the point of the prayer is to promote or "respect" a particular religion... which you know to be in direct violation of the Constitution, and in admitting that would make your entire argument crumble. For you, it is very important to proselytize in every way possible.. I understand... that's part of being an Evangelical Christian... and it is painful for you to give up that Privilege you have enjoyed... I understand.
I eagerly wait for that honest answer to my questions at 8:15.
Anon 0815 -
I apologize. Your comment was approved by someone else and I missed it.
What purpose does it serve? To be honest, I can't say. I wasn't even born when the practice began. I can speculate, but it would be no more than that.
Your implication at 0815 is that this was designed to promote a particular religion. Honestly, I don't believe that is the case nor was it the intent.
In you 1617 comment you state:
"expose the fact that the point of the prayer is to promote or "respect" a particular religion... which you know to be in direct violation of the Constitution"
I do not accept that argument. I know where you are getting that from, and your point of view is understandable. However, the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state (Federal) religion and prohibits the Federal government from interfering with an individual's free exercise of religion. Neither is the case here.
FYI - it is not part of being an Evangelical Christian to proselytize in every way possible. Yes, we believe in sharing the Gospel. A public prayer is not a particularly effective means of doing that. Remember, my argument for keeping the prayer was based on two points:
1. Honoring a tradition that does not appear to harm anyone.
2. My disdain anti-religious secularism.
I hope I answered your questions although I am confident that you are not persuaded to my point of view.
Post a Comment